Religious nutjobs spread the blame for Aurora shooting

Originally posted by Kaploink
If every person in the United States had the fear of God and attended a Christian church every Sunday, these mega church leaders and televangelists
would still claim we are a Godless nation. As these claims are simply means of self promotion to keep the donations coming in to fight the evil.
After all, they are business with payrolls and other expenses who need a steady influx of cash to stay in the black. These are not your volunteer
based local churches.

Personally, I find it appalling that they try to profit off such tragedies.

edit on 23-7-2012 by Kaploink because: meh

Thank you so much for making this point. It's what I was trying to say when I posted the picture of the Crystal Palace to give some flavor of what
we're all talking about here.

This "Preacher's" Church is a mega million dollar corporation and in my opinion, he's got about as much connection to God as I have to Walt Disney
himself.

Maybe if so many, claiming to be Christians, didn't hide behind God's skirt while citing scripture to promote their personal bigotry, we wouldn't
be associating bigotry with Christianity in the first place.

Maybe if so many, claiming to be Christians, didn't hide behind God's skirt while citing scripture to promote their personal bigotry, we wouldn't
be associating bigotry with Christianity in the first place.

For sure.

I grew up Christian. I speak what I know.

Can't say the same about many Christians when they slam: Mormons - Islam - Wiccans - etc etc

Someone recently pointed out that, as offensive as it sounds, a serial rapist would benefit more from natural selection in passing along their genes
than a do-gooder monogamist

This assumes two things both of which I have an issue with. First it assumes that life is about passing on as many genes as possible and second it
assumes that it is easier and potentially better for the rapist to rape people than it is for him to pass on his genes via more socially acceptable
consensual methods.

While certainly reproduction seems the main function of all life we cannot reduce something as complex as the human brain to the level of a virus
which simply seeks to rape and pillage the cells of its host in order to endlessly make copies of itself. There's a lot more going on with human
beings than simply passing on our genes, even if many advantages, such as the innate empathy we possess, help us with that.

With our natural empathy and status as social animals it doesn't make sense for a serial rapist to thrive in the group. Being social animals with
morals may seem to hinder passing on our genes, but actually it helps. The group, the community and family units, are necessary to raise the children
to adulthood in order that they too can pass on their genes. Someone who starts raping people the moment they become old enough to reproduce isn't
going to last long in the group and their motivation, given empathy and the fact that they were raised in the group and likely have developed some
loyalty or sense of duty to it, wouldn't make sense.

I think people are extrapolating a bit too much from what Dawkins is saying, though I honestly haven't read his books. Survival of the fittest is not
about spreading your genes to as many as you can, it's simply about surviving long enough to reproduce, being just fit enough, and morality helps us
do that (regardless of its source).

If they are instinctual, how is it that they change en masse and in a very short period,

I take a sort of two tiered approach to my own 'theory' of morality. Empathy and a natural sense of fairness, which are both instinctive, form the
basic framework for morality in my opinion BUT thanks to complex abstract language and thinking things have become a bit more nuanced then "hey, my
fellow primate stole my banana, I think I'll retaliate!"

So there is societal collective morality, the morality that the group develops, which vary vastly from time period to time period and group to group.
These are the sorts of rules typically enforced by the authority of the group. I think such morality works best when grounded in empathy and reason
and left flexible enough to change as society does.

If values were imposed instead by a deity, or simply if morals existed in some kind of Platonic form written into the laws of nature, it wouldn't
explain how vastly different moral systems exist. It wouldn't explain how it was once considered morally acceptable to own another human being as
property but now we realize how wrong that was. If such a thing were imposed wouldn't we be compelled to adhere to it? After all how can you amend a
moral system which is carved into the fabric of what you are? The existence of a moral framework, a sort of base level morality for social animals,
makes sense from an evolutionary perspective as something like basic empathy could easily have evolved... the more complex nuances of morality and
value systems and cultural minutia is a bit different, more complicated and mysterious. Morality as the gift of some god, or the curse of some
forbidden fruit, doesn't make sense though, even if all the pieces in the evolutionary explanation haven't been found.

The idea that Jesus brought a new set of rules is false. Indeed, it's questionable whether a truly new morality could be created. What seems like a
new morality is simply putting extra emphasis on one portion of the existing moral system.

If such a thing were imposed wouldn't we be compelled to adhere to it? After all how can you amend a moral system which is carved into the
fabric of what you are?

I would argue that societies know about morality, but no one can be forced to follow it. Nothing is "carved into the
fabric of what you are" to the extent that you can't choose a different way. Then it wouldn't be a part of any moral system, it would become a
biological function, like breathing.

ther ehave been many moral systems where "do not kill" or "do not steal" and similar applied unevenly across society. One only has to go back a
couple of hundred years to chattel slavery, or even less to differential sentecing for black people killing white people vs the opposite in the
USA.

Even longer ago there were even more egregious differences - slaves could be killed in some societies, in others the penalty for killing was cash that
varied with the "value" of the deceased, nobles have been allowed to rape and kill their own peasants with impunity, etc.

People are taught by conservatives that people and society have no worth or importance- only wealth matters. That and worshiping guns and the
military, while telling people that if they care about society or other people they're anti-American Marxists and Communists. And people are
surprised stuff like this happens.

It's safe to say that many moral systems are different. We've had systems that approve slavery, human sacrifice, racism, stoning people to death for
working on a Saturday, etc etc. Yes its true that the basic morals of most cultures are typically similar.

The idea of an absolute morality doesn't make much sense to me and seems contradicted by everyday experience. The basic moral framework is there,
feelings of empathy, guilt, etc but these are more instinctive guidelines than actual rules.

Slavery, killing, rape, pillage, etc. were indeed parcticed. Immoral behavior does occur, and when enough influential people behave that way they put
up various social "walls" to protect themselves. And protect themselves they must for the peasant, the slave, and even other members of society say
"Your behavior is wrong!" The US didn't accept slavery in the North, and preachers were at the forefront of abolishing it here. It was argued
against on a moral basis, not economic.

Certainly people can be blinded by their lust for property, money, and women, what good is a temptation that nobody wants? Citizens may say, "Well,
that's just the way it is," but they know in their hearts that it's wrong. They don't say, "Rape, pillage, and slavery are a good moral
system." Even the people benefitting from such behavior don't really believe it's good, they look for rationalizations to excuse it.

People are taught by conservatives that people and society have no worth or importance- only wealth matters. That and worshiping guns and the
military, while telling people that if they care about society or other people they're anti-American Marxists and Communists.

That seems like
a pretty broad statement, I can understand it as an opinion, but I can't imagine any evidence to support it. I must know the wrong kind of
conservatives. They keep talking about a smaller government with more power being exercised by the states instead of Washington, and the counties
instead of states. The religious ones seem most concerned with my prayer life and moral values. But as I say you've got an opinion and you're
willing to express it. Good. It's even better if you're willing to examine your opinions.

Thanks, I think I agree with your line of thinking, but the language may be getting in my way.

The idea of an absolute morality doesn't make much sense to me and seems contradicted by everyday experience.

I might not be
following the term "absolute morality." I think it means that there are principles of right and wrong that cross cultural lines, are part of our
humanity. You're right, everyday experience shouts out "F___ Morality, we'll do what we want." Those people are putting an excessive emphasis on
the idea of appreciating good and beautiful things, while twisting what good and beautiful means. Fun is a good thing, but burning down a building
indicates an immoral person.

The basic moral framework is there, feelings of empathy, guilt, etc but these are more instinctive guidelines than actual rules.

But
where does guilt come from, if not the knowledge that one has violated a rule, done something wrong?

A society (tropical island, perhaps) may say that a woman is modestly dressed if she wears only a grass skirt. We know what strict Muslims require.
But in both societies modest dress is a good thing and immodest dress is criticized.

I don't know if I've understood you, but I'm learning a lot. Thanks for that.

Even the people benefitting from such behavior don't really believe it's good, they look for rationalizations to excuse it.

I do not think you can say that as an absolute - the Greeks & Romans had societies (they were every similar & the Romans can be seen as the successors
to the Greeks in some respects) for 1000 years (more or less) in which slavery was completely acceptable and no-one had any moral qualms about it at
all.

Thanks, that's a good point. I know nothing about the subject so I thought I'd get a start with good old Wikipedia. Of course reliability is
always questionable, and I am selectively quoting, but I found this:

Slavery in the ancient world, specifically, in Mediterranean cultures,
comprised a mixture of debt-slavery, slavery as a punishment for crime, and the enslavement of prisoners of war.

A little different form of
slavery than the more modern world experienced. This slavery seemed to be for the offense of not paying your bills, committing some crime, or
fighting against the country.

The difficulty of distinguishing between slaves and levied peasant labour has bedevilled the study of this subject. Private ownership of slaves,
captured in war and given by the king to their captor, certainly occurred at the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty (1550 - 1295 BCE). Sales of
slaves occurred in the Twenty-fifth Dynasty (732 - 656 BCE), and contracts of servitude survive from the Twenty-sixth Dynasty (ca 672 - 525 BCE) and
from the reign of Darius: apparently such a contract then required the consent of the slave.

By the late 4th century BCE passages start to appear from other Greeks, especially in Athens, which opposed slavery and suggested that every
person living in a city-state had the right to freedom subject to no one, except only to laws decided using majoritarianism. Alcidamas, for example,
said: "God has set everyone free. No one is made a slave by nature." Furthermore, a fragment of a poem of Philemon also shows that he opposed
slavery.

I actually find it astonishing that anyone would not find a spiritual connection to the atrocity that was committed in Aurora. Indeed the apologists
for our current culture and lovers of the state religion, atheism, do not believe in the existence of evil, despite the insane actions of people like
Hitler or James Holmes.

James Holmes should scream demons in your face. This is a man possessed by an extraordinary absence of any sort of compassion for his fellow man.
That sort of thing is the domain of those possessed by entities who hate mankind and are dedicated to it's destruction.

Hitler himself was a demon worshipper, having been steeped in occult principles from his masters in the Thule society. Yet the masses make excuses
for this behavior, calling it insane and desperately trying to deny the obvious reality of demon possession and supernatural evil in our world.

It is a fact that evil behavior increases as morality is tossed and Jesus is rejected as a way of life. This is yet another proof we are in the last
days.

Seems to be a clear cut case of how people have their own views of the world and how they see them in the recourse of worldly events. I see no reason
to call anyone a nut job. This world is what it is and not everyone can be so intelligent as you seem to be.

I think when a tragedy of this magnitude happens we really struggle to understand WHY it happened. For regular folks we can not fathom what would make
a person do something this evil. Not knowing why, not being able to label it, not being able to see it coming, scares most of us because that means
there is no way to cure it, and no way to excuse it really. If we can "name" it, then we feel like we could understand it better and sleep safe
every night in knowing that we along with our friends and family will not "catch" it, so to speak.

In the back of our minds we want answers and logical explanations so that we can work out a way to "fix" it like we do with everything else.

It makes us uncomfortable to not KNOW.

This is just MHO though. Replace religion with MKUltra, bath salts, mental illness, etc. and all of these bases will probably be covered concerning
this event and the killer before all is said and done.

I think it means that there are principles of right and wrong that cross cultural lines, are part of our humanity.

When I say absolute morality I'm talking about morals that are non-negotiable, unbending regardless of context. An example of how this falls apart
the moment we apply it to, say, taking the life of another human being. In most contexts we seem to intuitively know that killing is wrong but when
faced with danger we may have to kill in self-defense or in the name of a cause that we believe in. Stealing is another one. Most cultures have
prohibitions on stealing but what about the poor? Are the destitute and starving really immoral if they begin stealing to survive? What about the
classic tale of Robin Hood, many would argue that stealing from the corrupt and powerful to help the poor is a noble goal.

Moral dilemmas simply would not exist if morals were absolute. Here's an easy illustration of a moral dilemma, let's say there is a bomb in the
apartment building you live in, for whatever reason you have two options, you can either save 25 neighbors who you don't know very well or your own
child who is trapped inside. Some would argue that it makes sense to save only your own child, because they're your child and you should care about
them more than some strangers or acquaintances. Others might argue that you're being selfish by only rescuing your own offspring and that the correct
action was to save the neighbors. Still others would argue that the situation is a no-win scenario, where neither option is ideally moral and either
ends in tragedy.

You're right, everyday experience shouts out "F___ Morality, we'll do what we want."

That's not at all what I meant. I simply meant that on a regular basis we all deal with moral conundrums and conflicts of interest. The nuances of
morality and what behaviors lead to what outcomes are many and the idea of a completely rigid and absolute morality seems directly contradicted by
such complexities.

But where does guilt come from, if not the knowledge that one has violated a rule, done something wrong?

That's exactly where it does come from. The question is where do the rules come from and the answer seems to have two parts in my opinion. The first
is a natural innate sense of empathy and fairness that usually forms a frame for the more complex societal cultural morality. Problems arise in
societies that stray too far from the natural network of reason and empathy we seem to be born with.

But in both societies modest dress is a good thing and immodest dress is criticized.

As I said I believe there is a basic framework for morality which evolved due to our species being very socially interdependent. The nuances and
differences in morals stems from our ability to form complex abstract thoughts and express them through language and also the tendency to give
authority to a hierarchy which can lead to the various moral abuses we've seen over the history of mankind.

It's not a perfect system but unlike absolute morality it is flexible enough to progress and evolve. Martin Luther King Jr. once said that the moral
arc of the Universe bends toward justice. Our societal morality improves whenever we use reason and empathy as a guide and when we stray too far from
that natural moral framework we tend to get ourselves into trouble.

Psychopaths have existed in history forever. The God of the OT was a psychopath. Just look at the story of Job. Moses murdered an Egyptian guard,
David presented King Saul with 200 foreskins for his daughter. And the list goes on.

Psychopaths persist and survive BECAUSE of their lack of empathy and through survival of the fittest, and are reinforced as role models in our
society.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Why does everybody have to try to find some sort of justification for their own bigotry in the lunatic actions a nut-job with too many guns and a bad
attitude???

The two men who are quoted are voices from the dominate American cultural voice, from the religious wing. This is the dominate cultural voice heard
for over three decades. If you were born around 1980 or after, chances are that these are the only voices you heard.

Where your father was exposed to voices saying that there were Communists under every bed, in schools, and in government, you have heard that Satan
was now in those places. Certain aspects of personal lives could be under Satan's control, evolution teachings were going against God, and favored
politicians told of hearing God's voice telling them to run for office.

You were told by these voices that they alone had the truth, the correct code to live by, and that you were either for them or against them. You were
told that there was hatred for them, that there was a war against them, that their enemies (other Americans at first) were out to destroy them.

The voices were first heard by small flocks, guided by shepherds tuned into the dominant religious and political cultures. Growing media voices grew
along with larger congregations, tuning out and ready to fight disagreeing voices, the enemy.

Their views of God and authority were correct, to the point of political correctness. Their prophetic voice for End Times was used by government to
garner public support for a war in the Middle East. The American military would cause helter skelter in Biblical lands.

If fear dominates your Heart, then that is what will guide you to fearful action. If that fear produces anger, then it is anger that will guide you to
act angrily. If compassion is dominant, then you will love yourself and others, and your enemy.

In the compassionate words of Jesus, “Father, forgive them, for they don’t know what they are doing.”

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.